SUDHIR VILAS KALEL & ORS.versusBAPU RAJARAM KALEL & ORS.

                  [2024] 2 S.C.R. 165 : 2024 INSC 90

                         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors.
                                    v.
                        Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.

                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 1776 of 2024)

                              07 February 2024
             [Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether Appellant No.1 was entitled to the protection of ss.3 and
       4, Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
       Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
       Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; whether the
       proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the No Confidence Motion
       against Appellant No.2 as not carried for want of the requisite
       votes is tenable.

                                  Headnotes
       Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
       Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
       Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 – ss.3, 4 –
       Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – ss.35, 10(1A),
       30(1A) – Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
       Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
       Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
       of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 –
       ss.3, 4 of the 2023 Act – Protection under – When not available
       – No Confidence Motion against Appellant No.2-Sarpanch
       of the Gram Panchayat – Validity – Appellant No.1 if was a
       member of the Panchayat entitled to vote and covered by the
       protective umbrella u/ss.3 and 4:
       Held: Temporary Extension Act was enacted since the Scrutiny
       Committees were overburdened with the work of verification of
       Caste Certificates and the elected members were facing difficulties
       in obtaining the Validity Certificates within the prescribed time –
       It aimed to protect the applicants whose applications were still
       pending before the Scrutiny Committee – The idea was that such
       elected candidates ought not to be deprived merely because of

* Author
166                                                                 [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       non-issuance of Validity Certificates when the applications are
       still pending – Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as
       a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within
       12 months from the date of his election – The protective umbrella
       of s.3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available
       to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by s.3(2)(b), as there was no
       valid application pending on the date of the commencement of
       the said Act – Appellant No.1 ceased to be a member because of
       the automatic disqualification – The contention that there was no
       rejection and that it was only a “filing” or “lodgment” of the application
       by the Scrutiny Committee, not accepted – The rejection in s.3(2)(b)
       will also include those cases where applications came to be rejected
       on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants
       themselves – Proceedings of the Tahsildar dtd.19.06.2023 rejecting
       the No Confidence Motion on the ground that the voting requirement
       of three-fourth of the members “entitled to sit and vote”, was not
       fulfilled, cannot be sustained and was rightly set aside by the High
       Court – High Court also rightly set aside the rejection of the No
       Confidence Motion holding that the No Confidence Motion against
       Appellant No. 2-Sarpanch, was duly carried – Order of the High
       Court affirmed. [Paras 31, 39, 40, 42-44]
       Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
       Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
       Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023 – s.3(1)(b),
       (2)(b):
       Held: s.3 covers the cases of persons who had applied to the
       Scrutiny Committee for verification of their Caste Certificate before
       the date of filing of the nomination papers and who were elected
       on the reserved seat; and whose applications were pending before
       the Scrutiny Committee on the date of commencement of the Act–
       It is mandated that they can produce the certificate within twelve
       months from the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension
       Act, 2023 i.e. till 09.07.2024 – Under s.3(1), the further period of
       twelve months from 10.07.2023 was for those whose applications
       were validly filed and pending and where their applications have
       been submitted before the date of nomination – Sub-section (2)
       (b) clearly states that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
       apply where the member whose application of Validity Certificate
       had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. [Paras 31, 38]
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           167

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


                              Case Law Cited
           Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of
           Maharashtra & Others. (2019) 3 SCC 220 – referred to.
           Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
           & Ors. 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431; Mandakani Kachru Kokane
           alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra
           & Ors. 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 221 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting
     Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats,
     Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023; Maharashtra
     Village Panchayats Act, 1959; Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
     Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
     Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
     (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
     2000; Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta
     Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
     Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
     Caste Certificate Rules, 2012; Maharashtra Municipal Councils,
     Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

                             List of Keywords
     Caste Certificate; Verification of Caste Certificates; Validity
     Certificate; Scrutiny Committees; No Confidence Motion; Automatic
     disqualification; Sarpanch.

                            Case Arising From

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1776 of 2024

     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.7924 of 2023
                         Appearances for Parties
     Gaurav Agrawal, Manav, Mr./Ms. Suman Sharma, Muesh Kumar
     Tripathy, Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Anand Dilip Landge, Siddheshwar Kalel,
     Vivek Salunkhe, Aniruddha Joshi, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
     Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya
     Krishna, Ms. Raavi Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
168                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports



                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                  Judgment
       K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.     Leave Granted.
2.     The ‘war’ in this case is over the validity of a No Confidence Motion
       against Appellant No. 2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel, the Sarpanch
       (Village head) of Jambulani Gram Panchayat. However, there is a
       ‘battle’ within, which entirely determines the result of the war. It is
       on the validity of the membership of Appellant No. 1 – Sudhir Vilas
       Kalel in the Panchayat. A Motion of No Confidence is to be carried
       by not less than three-fourth of the total number of members who
       are entitled, to ‘sit’ and ‘vote’. If the Appellant No. 1 was entitled to
       ‘Sit’ as a member on 19.06.2023, then the No Confidence Motion
       against Appellant No.2 cannot ‘Stand’, to deploy a Denning-esque
       phrase. The High Court has found against the appellants. Aggrieved,
       they are before us in appeal.
3.     Was the Appellant No.1, in law, a member of the Panchayat,
       entitling him to vote, is the question that arises for consideration in
       this case. Is the Appellant No. 1 covered by the protective umbrella
       under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Temporary Extension
       of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to
       Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2023
       [hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Extension Act, 2023”]?
       If the answer is in the affirmative, the election of the Appellant No.
       1 as a reserved Member in the election of the Gram Panchayat
       of Village Jambulani would stand validated. Consequently, the No
       Confidence Motion expressing No Confidence in the Appellant No.
       2 – Sushila Sitaram Kalel (the Sarpanch) would also stand nullified.
       If Appellant No. 1 is held not to be entitled to the benefit of Section 3
       of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, then he would be deemed to
       have vacated his seat and consequently, the No Confidence Motion
       would stand carried. For a fuller understanding, the background facts
       and the statutory regime need to be set out in some detail.
       Brief facts and the Legislative Regime:
4.     On 30.12.2020, the Appellant No. 1 filed his nomination papers
       for contesting elections as a Member of the Panchayat of Village
       Jambulani, District Satara on a seat reserved for the OBC category.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            169

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


     As early as on 03.02.2013 itself, the Appellant No. 1 was issued a
     Caste Certificate by the Sub Divisional Officer, District Satara certifying
     that he belongs to ‘Lonari’ Caste which is an Other Backward Class.
     He had on the same day of filing his nomination papers i.e. on
     30.12.2020 applied for a Validity Certificate. This Validity Certificate is
     an essential requirement under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
     Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
     Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
     (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000
     [hereinafter referred to as the “Caste Certificate Act, 2000”]. There
     are elaborate rules framed under this Act which will be discussed
     later in the judgment.
5.   Under Section 3 of this Act, any person belonging to Other Backward
     Class for the purpose of contesting for any elective post in any local
     authority, should apply in such form and in such manner as may be
     prescribed, to the Competent Authority for the issuance of a Caste
     Certificate. Under Section 4 of this Act, the Competent Authority is
     entitled to issue a Caste Certificate. This is a Certificate which the
     Appellant No. 1 possessed on 03.02.2013. However, this alone is
     not conclusive. Under Section 4(2), the Caste Certificate issued by
     the Competent Authority would be valid subject to the verification
     and grant of Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Under
     Section 6 of this Act, the Government is authorized to constitute a
     Scrutiny Committee and prescribe the area of its jurisdiction. Under
     Section 6(2) of this Act, after obtaining the Caste Certificate from the
     Competent Authority, any person, desirous of availing of the benefits
     or concessions provided to the said caste, is authorized to make an
     application, well in time, in such form and in such manner as may be
     prescribed to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for the verification
     of such Caste Certificate and issue of a Validity Certificate. Under
     Section 6(4) of this Act, the Scrutiny Committee was to follow such
     procedure for verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the
     time limit for verification and grant of Validity Certificate as prescribed.
6.   The Rules called the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified
     Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
     Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification
     of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the “2012
     Rules”] have been framed. Rule 11 prescribes the constitution of
     the Scrutiny Committee. Rule 14 sets out that any person desirous
170                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       of availing of the benefits and concessions provided to the reserved
       category shall submit an application in the prescribed form with an
       affidavit to the concerned Scrutiny Committee for verification of his
       caste claim and issuance of Caste Validity Certificate well in time.
       Rule 15 mandates that the application for verification of Caste
       Certificate under Rule 14 shall be filed or submitted well in time in
       such form and in such manner as may be prescribed in Rule 17.
       Further Rule 16 provides for the information to be supplied by the
       applicant. It states that to enable the Scrutiny Committee to decide the
       application expeditiously, the documents/information set out therein,
       was to be produced. Apart from setting out certain documents, sub-
       clause (f) provides for the furnishing of other relevant evidence, if
       any, subject to admissibility. Explanation 2 of Rule 16 speaks of the
       applicant undertaking the production of original documents as and
       when required by the Scrutiny Committee.
7.     Rule 17, which prescribes the procedure of Scrutiny Committee, is
       significant for this case. Sub-Rules 1 to Sub- Rules 3 of Rule 17 are
       extracted herein below:
            “17 (1) On receipt of application, the Scrutiny Committee
            shall ensure that the application and the information
            supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to carry
            out scrutiny of the application.
            (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
            claimant or applicant or complainant shall be personally
            responsible for removal of objections raised by Scrutiny
            Committee, if any, within two weeks or within such
            extended period, which shall not be more than six weeks,
            failing which the claim or application or complaint shall be
            disposed of, by appreciating available records and such
            decision may be communicated to the applicant by the
            Scrutiny Committee.
            (3) The incomplete application may be rejected by recording
            reasons.”
8.     As is clear from the above, Rule 17 (2) states that applicant was
       personally responsible for removal of objections raised by the
       Scrutiny Committee within the time prescribed. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule
       17 categorically states that incomplete application may be rejected
       by recording reasons.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                                      171

            Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


9.     For the purpose of adjudicating this case, alongside the above
       statutes, certain provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
       Act, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the “Panchayats Act”] which
       come into play, need to be set out and analyzed. Section 10-1A,
       reads as follows:
               “10-1A. Person contesting election for reserved seat
               to submit Caste Certificate and Validity Certificate.
               - Every person desirous of contesting election to a seat
               reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or,
               as the case may be, Backward Class of Citizens, shall
               be required to submit, alongwith the nomination paper,
               Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority and
               the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee
               in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra
               Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
               (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes
               and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance
               and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000:
               Provided that, for the General or by-elections for which
               the last date of filing of nomination falls on or before the
               31st December 20231, in accordance with the election
               programme declared by the State Election Commission,
               a person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for
               verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing
               of the nomination papers but who has not received the
               Validity Certificate on the date of filing of the nomination
               papers shall submit, along with the nomination papers, -
               (i)     a true copy of the application preferred by him to
                       the Scrutiny Committee for issuance of the Validity
                       Certificate or any other proof of having made such
                       application to the Scrutiny Committee; and
               (ii)    an undertaking that he shall submit, within a period of
                       twelve months from the date on which he is declared
                       elected, the Validity Certificate issued by the Scrutiny
                       Committee:


1    (This date was originally 28.02.2021, at the time of the election in question)
172                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            Provided further that, if such person fails to produce the
            Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months from
            the date on which he is declared elected, his election shall
            be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and
            he shall be disqualified for being a member.’’
       A similar provision in the form of Section 30(1A) exists for persons
       contesting for the reserved office of Sarpanch.
10. In view of the above provision, every person desirous of contesting
    election to a membership in the reserved category, shall submit
    alongwith the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the
    Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued by the
    Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
    The proviso sets out that for elections for which the last date of filing
    of nomination fell on or before the date prescribed in the proviso, a
    person who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee for verification
    of his Caste Certificate before the date of filing of the nomination
    papers but who has not yet received the Validity Certificate shall
    submit, along with the nomination papers, an undertaking that he
    shall submit the same, within a period of twelve months from the date
    on which he is declared elected. The further proviso sets out that if
    such person fails to produce the Validity Certificate within a period
    of twelve months from the date on which he is declared elected, his
    election shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
    and the person was to be disqualified for being a member.
11. In pari materia provision exists in the Maharashtra Municipal Councils,
    Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 in the form
    of Section 9A therein.
12. A raging legal debate arose in Maharashtra about the nature of these
    provisions – are they mandatory or are they directory? The issue
    was settled by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case
    of Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
    & Ors. [2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431]. This judgment of the Full Bench was
    affirmed by this Court in the case of Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre
    (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others.[ (2019) 3 SCC 220].
13. There were earlier divergent views in the High Court. The parties
    contending that the provisions were “directory”, primarily argued that
    the time taken for disposal by the Scrutiny Committee was not in
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           173

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


     their control. According to them, as long as the Validity Certificate
     was produced within a reasonable time, the strict time limit provided
     in the statute should be construed as directory and that elections
     should not be invalidated for the said reason. On the other hand,
     the proponents of the theory that the provision was mandatory
     contended that the statute is couched in mandatory terms, with the
     use of the word ‘shall’ and that consequences had been provided
     for non-compliance. The Full Bench, after considering the statutory
     provision and the decided cases, in para 45 and 46 of the judgment
     first held the following:
           “45. In case of Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), the Full Bench
           of this Court, in the context of inter play between similar
           Municipal Legislations and the Caste Act, 2000, has held
           that the legislature expects a person to claim benefit of
           contesting to a reserved post only after obtaining Validity
           Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, though it also
           permits a person to claim such benefit on the basis of
           a tentative caste certificate issued by the Competent
           Authority, if such a person is willing to take the risk. Such
           reasoning is reflected in paragraphs 12A, 12B and 12C.
           Since paragraph 12B is most relevant, it is transcribed
           below for reference of convenience:—
           “12B. Thus the scheme is that a person who obtains a caste
           certificate has to himself apply to the Scrutiny Committee
           for scrutiny of his caste certificate, so that he can secure
           a valid certificate from the Scrutiny Committee, and it is
           only after the Scrutiny Committee issuing a valid certificate
           that the caste certificate issued in favour of the person by
           the Competent Authority becomes final. In our opinion, the
           scheme of subsection (2) of section 6 is that any candidate
           who desires to avail of any benefit available to backward
           class has to get a caste certificate as also the validity
           certificate before he makes a claim for the benefits. But if
           a candidate chooses to make claim to the benefits on the
           basis of a tentative certificate namely a certificate issued
           by the Competent Authority, he takes the risk of his losing
           the benefits that he has claimed and obtained and also
           being visited with penal consequences on the refusal of
           the Scrutiny Committee to validate his caste claim. The Act
174                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            contemplates conscious decision being made by a person
            at the time of claiming benefits. The Legislature expects
            a person to claim the benefits only after obtaining the
            validity certificate, but the Legislature also permits a
            person to claim the benefits on the basis of a tentative
            certificate issued by the Competent Authority, if he
            is willing to take the risk mentioned above. In our
            opinion, therefore, the validity certificate is one of the
            essential ingredient of the candidate being qualified
            to contest for the reserved seat….”
                                                    (emphasis supplied)
            46. According to Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), therefore, a
            person who seeks to contest election to reserved posts
            without compliance with the general rule of producing
            Validity Certificate along with nomination papers, ‘takes a
            risk’. The first proviso to section 9-A, in such a case, makes
            this position quite clear by requiring such person to furnish
            a statutory undertaking to produce Validity Certificate within
            six months from the date of election. The second proviso,
            in terms, provides for consequence in case of breach. Such
            person, having taken the risk, cannot, in the absence of
            any ambiguity in the provision, be permitted to wriggle out
            from the consequences of breach so clearly and statutorily
            provided in the provision itself. Otherwise, such person,
            will avail of a conditional concession, without, fulfilling the
            condition subject to which such concession came to be
            granted in the first place by the provision.”
       The Legislature expects a person claiming the benefit of contesting
       in a reserved post to be in possession of both the Caste Certificate
       and the Validity Certificate at the time of filing the nomination. The
       allowance to contest by submitting the Caste Certificate alone was
       with the undertaking that he would produce the Validity Certificate
       within the stipulated time, and this was the risk that the candidate
       was taking. It was a ‘risk’ because a Validity Certificate which he
       ought to have ordinarily possessed on the date of nomination being
       unavailable, he or she is granted the concession of contesting,
       subject to the undertaking. In the event of non-production within
       the stipulated time, even an elected candidate would automatically
       stand disqualified.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                              175

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


14. Thereafter, the Full Bench went on to hold as follows in para 80 and
    81, while construing the nature of the time limit for production of the
    Validity Certificate, as it then stood.
           “80. ...If the legislature, for a limited period of time, taking
           into consideration pendency of applications for issuance of
           Validity Certificate before the Scrutiny Committee grants
           some exemptions or concession to persons who have
           applied for issue of Validity Certificate before the date
           of filing nomination papers, but who have not received
           such Validity Certificate on the date of filing of nomination
           papers, subject to such persons producing the Validity
           Certificate “within period of six months from the date of
           election”, there is no reason to treat the stipulation as to
           time has (sic.) merely directory and thereby enlarge or
           extend the exemption or the concession granted by the
           legislature.
           81. If, the intention of the legislature was to grant exemption
           from the requirement of producing Validity Certificate, until,
           the elected candidate’s application is disposed of by the
           Scrutiny Committee, nothing prevented the legislature from
           saying so expressly or at least by necessary implication.
           Instead, in this case, and perhaps, for good reason,
           the legislature has consciously deemed it appropriate
           to insist that the person submits an undertaking that he
           shall produce the Validity Certificate within six months
           and further, the legislature, in clear, unambiguous and
           express terms has provided that upon the failure of such
           person to produce the Validity Certificate within six months
           from the date of election, his election shall be deemed
           to have been retrospectively terminated and he shall be
           disqualified for being a Councillor. If, the stipulation as to
           time is construed as directory, then, the legislative intent, so
           clearly expressed, will be defeated. The significant portions
           of the provision will be rendered a mere surplusage. In
           essence, this Court would be rewriting the statute on the
           basis of its own value judgments or notions of equity and
           inequity.”
176                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       After holding that the provision is mandatory, the Full Bench held that
       failure to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee
       within the stipulated time would mean that the election was deemed
       to have been terminated retrospectively and the person was to be
       disqualified. It also held that retrospective termination of the election
       and disqualification were automatic in the following words:-
            “98. In the present case also the legislature in enacting
            section 9-A has provided for a statutory fiction, which is
            evident from the use of expression “his election shall be
            deemed to have been terminated retrospectively and he
            shall be disqualified being a Councillor”. The statutory
            fiction must be allowed to have its full play. No other
            provision or reason has been pointed out to take the view
            that consequences prescribed under second proviso to
            section 9-A are not automatic or would require any further
            adjudication once it is established that the person elected
            has failed to produce the Validity Certificate within a
            stipulated period of six months from the date of his election.
            99. The validation of caste claim of the elected Councillor
            by the Scrutiny Committee beyond the prescribed period
            would have no effect upon the statutory consequences
            prescribed under the second proviso to section 9-A i.e.
            deemed retrospective termination of the election of such
            Councillor and his disqualification for being a Councillor.
            The subsequent validation or issue of the Validity Certificate
            will therefore be irrelevant for the purpose of restoration of
            the Councillor’s election but, such validation will obviously
            entitle him to contest the election to be held on account
            of termination of his election and the consequent vacancy
            caused thereby.
            100. In the result, we hold that the time limit of six months
            prescribed in the two provisos to section 9-A of the said
            Act, within which an elected person is required to produce
            the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee is
            mandatory.”
            Further, in terms of second proviso to section 9-A if a person
            fails to produce Validity Certificate within a period of six
            months from the date on which he is elected, his election
            shall be deemed to have been terminated retrospectively
            and he shall be disqualified for being a Councillor.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            177

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


           Such retrospective termination of his election and
           disqualification for being a Councillor would be automatic
           and validation of his caste claim after the stipulated period
           would not result in restoration of his election.
           The questions raised, stand answered accordingly.”
15. This statutory background is essential to interpret the Temporary
    Extension Act, 2023. To consider whether the Appellant No. 1 is
    entitled to the protection of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023,
    it is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the present case. The
    Appellant No. 1 obtained his Caste Certificate on 03.02.2013. Only on
    30.12.2020 (the date of his nomination) he submitted an application
    for the Validity Certificate to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. At the
    time of filing of his nomination, he also filed an undertaking that he
    will produce the Caste Validity Certificate within twelve months from
    the date of his election. On 18.01.2021, the elections were held and
    on 21.01.2021, the results were declared and the Appellant No. 1 was
    declared elected. The twelve months period expired on 20.01.2022.
16. On 30.12.2020, when he filed the application online to the Scrutiny
    Committee for obtaining the Validity Certificate, a receipt was issued
    to him. In the receipt, the following endorsement appears:-
           “I have been informed that, within seven days will file
           declaration otherwise the matter should be closed.”
     Thereafter, it is undisputed that on 01-03/04/2021, the District Caste
     Certificate Verification Committee, Satara made the following order.
     This order also covered the case of the Appellant No. 1 along with
     3013 other applicants. The order reads as under:
           “As per above read No 1 the intended contestants of the
           elections of Local Bodies. Municipal Councils, Municipal
           Corporations have submitted their application for their cast
           certificates with the office of the Committee. As per the read
           No 2 and 3 above the elected candidates in local bodies,
           municipal councils and corporations from reserved seats,
           have to submit their cast verification certificate within one
           year from the election.
           As per read No. 4 above notification regarding decision of
           the election dtd 23.03.2021 of Collector (Election Branch)
           and as per the notification submitted by the elected
178                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            candidates the committee scrutinized that, whether these
            applicants are elected in such elections or not? After
            scrutiny it found that, these applicant candidates have not
            been elected in the elections from the reserve seats. As
            such elected candidates have not filed the notification of
            elected candidates in time, this office cannot take decision
            in this regard. Hence this proposal has been filed as per
            the provisions of Rules 17(2)(3) of Maharashtra Rules of
            verification of caste certificate SC, ST, OBC, Spl BC 2012.”
       It is clear from the operative portion of the order that since the elected
       candidates have not submitted the notification of being elected, in
       time, the office was not able to take any decision in that regard. In
       view of that, the proposal was ‘filed’ as per the provisions of Rule
       17 (2)(3) of the 2012 Rules.
17. Before we take up for consideration the interpretation of Sections 3
    and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, one judgment of the High
    Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Mandakani Kachru
    Kokane alias Mandakani Vishnu Godse Vs State of Maharashtra
    & Ors. [2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 221] needs to be referred to. In the said
    judgment, in para 48, 49, 50(ii) and 50(iii), the following significant
    directions were issued:
            “48. Shri Satyajit Dighe, learned counsel for the Petitioner
            rightly submitted that impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny
            Committee was passed almost on the last day of twelve
            months mandatory period and therefore, no time was left for
            approaching this Court which is the only remedy available
            i.e. the constitutional remedy. Thus Petitioner’s right to
            approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
            of India is violated….
            49. However, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench
            of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulharkar (supra)
            Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat
            Act, 1958 is mandatory and therefore time limit provided
            therein cannot be extended. However, we are constrained
            to issue directions to all the Caste Scrutiny Committees
            to decide the matters much before the mandatory
            period of twelve months if the aforesaid provisions are
            applicable. However, this will be subject to the condition
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           179

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


           that the applicant completely co-operates in disposal of
           the proceedings in time bound manner and do not seek
           unnecessary adjournments.
           50. (ii) All the District Caste Scrutiny Committees are
           directed to dispose of the matters which are covered by
           the mandatory period of twelve months as provided in
           Section 10-1A and Section 30(1A) of the Maharashtra
           Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 9A of the Maharashtra
           Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial
           Townships Act, 1965, in Section 5-B of the Mumbai
           Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and Section 5-B of
           the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as
           expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period
           of eight months subject to following conditions:
           (a)   The concerned successful candidate who has applied for
                 getting caste certificate validated to convey his election
                 result and this order to the relevant District Caste Scrutiny
                 Committee personally or through his Advocate within a
                 period of two weeks from the date of declaration of the
                 result of his election and pointing out to the Committee
                 the aforesaid time period of twelve months as provided
                 in the aforesaid provisions with a request to expedite the
                 hearing and to complete the proceedings within the time
                 prescribed in this judgment.
           (b)   The relevant District Caste Scrutiny Committee to
                 fix tentative time table for disposal of the said case
                 in maximum period of eight months from the above
                 referred communication of the successful candidate to
                 the Committee. However while fixing the time table the
                 Committee shall also have regard to the provisions of said
                 Act and said Rules.
           (c)   The concerned successful candidate to completely
                 cooperate in expeditious disposal of the respective
                 proceedings before the committee and shall not take any
                 adjournment without valid reason.
           (d)   It is specifically directed that in case such successful
                 candidate fails to comply with the above directions then the
                 time limit as fixed herein will not apply to such proceedings.
180                                                            [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            (iii) The Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra
            is directed to circulate to all the District Caste Scrutiny
            Committees copy of this judgment within a period of 30
            days from today.”
       It is obvious from the above directions issued on 27th October, 2020
       (well before the Appellant No. 1 filed the application for the Validity
       Certificate on 30.12.2020) that within two weeks from the declaration
       of the result the successful candidate from the reserved seats was
       obligated to convey his election result and the order and the judgment
       of the High Court to the relevant Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
       candidate was also to point out the aforesaid time limit and request
       for an expeditious hearing and completion of proceeding within the
       said period. It is further clear that the Scrutiny Committee was to
       fix a tentative time table and dispose of the said application within
       a maximum period of eight months from the date of the aforesaid
       communication. The successful candidate was to co-operate in the
       expeditious disposal of the respective proceedings. Most importantly,
       it was specifically directed that in case the successful candidate
       failed to comply with the directions, then the time limit fixed therein
       will not apply to such proceedings.
18. It is also the understanding of the Appellant No. 1, as evident from
    the undertaking furnished along with his second application on
    14.06.2023, which is in the following terms:
            “I, Applicant – Sudhir Vilas Kalel respectfully submitting this
            I applicant Sudhir Vilas Kalel submitting my request
            application that, I contested the election of Grampanchayat
            Jambhulni, Tal Man in the year 2020 and I am elected in
            the said election. In that respect Ld. Election Officer, Tal
            Man has given me declaration/letter to me. Due to some
            reasons, I could not submit the same within time and
            therefore my proposal has been rejected by the Committee.
            That today on 14.07.2023, I am again submitting my fresh
            proposal and accepting the responsibilities for delay. I am
            solely responsible for the delay caused. You are kindly
            requested to accept my proposal and please issue me
            the Caste Validity Certificate at your earliest.”
                                                   (Emphasis Supplied)
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                          181

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


19. No doubt, on this application which is filed on 14.06.2023 (filed long
    after the submission of his nomination on 30.12.2020), he obtained
    the Validity Certificate on 12.07.2023.
20. In this background we need to examine whether the validation
    under Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 applies to
    the case of the Appellant No. 1. The provisions of Sections 3 and
    4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023, along with its Statement
    of Objects and Reasons, are set out and analyzed in the later part
    of the judgment.
21. A factual aspect that needs to be noticed is that on 26.05.2023,
    the Tehsildar forwarded a report to the Respondent No.11 - District
    Collector, Satara informing that the Appellant No. 1 Sudhir Vilas
    Kalel has failed to produce his Caste Validity Certificate within the
    prescribed time as per Section 10(1A) of the Panchayats Act.
     Proceedings arising from the No Confidence Motion
22. On 13.06.2023, eight Members moved a No Confidence Motion
    against Appellant No. 2-Sushila Sitaram Kalel, expressing No
    Confidence in her being the Sarpanch. The eight Respondents herein
    voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. If Appellant No.1 was
    entitled to sit, the total number of members would be eleven and eight
    members voting would only constitute 72.73%. If the Appellant No.1
    was not entitled to sit, then the total number of members would be
    ten and eight members voting would constitute 80%. On 19.06.2023,
    on the ground that there was absence of minimum three-fourth of
    the Members voting in favour of the motion, the No Confidence
    Motion was ordered as rejected. The relevant part of Section 35 of
    the Panchayats Act which deals with the process of No Confidence
    Motion is extracted below:
           “35. Motion of no confidence. –
           (1)   A motion of no confidence may be moved by not less
                 than two third of the total number of the members
                 who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at
                 any meeting of the panchayat against the Sarpanch
                 or the Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof
                 to the Tahsildar as may be prescribed. Such notice
                 once given shall not be withdrawn.
182                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


             (2)   Within seven days from the date of receipt by him
                   of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahasildar,
                   shall convene a special meeting of the panchayat at
                   a time to be appointed by him and he shall preside
                   over such meeting. At such special meeting, the
                   Sarpanch or the Upa- Sarpanch against whom the
                   motion of no confidence is moved shall have a right
                   to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings
                   at the meeting including the right to vote.
             (3)   If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than
                   three-fourth of the total number of the members who
                   are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any
                   meeting of the panchayat or the Upa-Sarpanch, as
                   the case may be, shall forthwith stop exercising all
                   the powers and perform all the functions and duties
                   of the office and thereupon such powers, functions
                   and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch in case
                   the motion is carried out against the Sarpanch; and
                   in case the motion is carried out against both the
                   Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, in such officer, not
                   below the rank of Extension Officer, as may be
                   authorised by the Block Development Officer, till the
                   dispute, if any, referred to under sub-section (3B) is
                   decided: …”
23. On 23.06.2023, respondents no. 1 to 8 filed a Writ Petition before the
    High Court praying that the No Confidence Motion against Appellant
    No. 2 be declared to be duly and validly carried, and for consequential
    directions directing the Appellant No. 2 to forthwith stop exercising all
    the powers, functions and duties as the Sarpanch. Further directions
    for declaring election to the post of Sarpanch were also prayed.
24. On 12.07.2023, the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
    Satara granted the Caste Validity Certificate to the Appellant No. 1.
25. By its judgment of 20.09.2023, which is impugned herein, the Division
    Bench of the High Court made rule absolute in terms of prayer (a)
    and (b) of the Writ. Prayer (a) and (b) of the Writ is as under:
       (a)   By suitable writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court may be
             pleased to hold and declare that the no confidence motion
             against the present Respondent No. 3 moved by the Petitioners
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                          183

           Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


            on 13/06/2023 has been duly and validly carried with the requisite
            majority in the special meeting conveyed by the Respondent
            No. 2 and held on 19/06/2023 and consequently the direction
            be issued to the Respondents that the Respondent No. 3 shall
            forthwith stop exercising all the powers, functions and duties
            as the Sarpanch in the village Panchayat Jambulani Taluka
            Man, District Satara and thereafter, further direction be issued
            to the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 6 – the Collector
            to declare the election for the post of the village Sarpanch for
            electing the new Sarpanch in the said Village Panchayat.
     (b)    By suitable writ, order or direction the declaration made by the
            Respondent No. 2 in the special meeting held on 19/06/2023
            and as recorded in the minutes of the said meeting declaring
            that the no confidence motion against the Respondent No. 3
            has failed be quashed and set aside.
     Questions for Consideration:
26. In this scenario, the questions that arise for consideration are as
    follows:
     a.     Whether Appellant No. 1 is entitled to the protection of Sections
            3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023?
     b.     Whether the proceedings of 19.06.2023 holding the No
            Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2 as not carried for
            want of the requisite votes is tenable?
     Contentions
27. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned advocate (since
    designated as a senior counsel) for the appellants and Mr. Vinay
    Navare, learned senior counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 8 as well
    as Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, learned counsel for the official respondents.
    Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned advocate vehemently contends that
    the application filed before the Scrutiny Committee on 30.12.2020
    has not been rejected. According to the learned counsel, the order
    dated 01-03/04.2021 cannot be construed as a rejection; that his
    application was pending and the filing done on 14.06.2023 was only
    a re-filing after curing the defects. In view of the same, according to
    the learned counsel, the Appellant No.1 is entitled to the benefit of
    the validation provision under Section 3 of the Temporary Extension
184                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Act, 2023. Learned counsel contends that under Section 35(3) of
       the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, a No Confidence Motion
       has to be carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of total
       number of Members who are for the time being entitled to sit and
       vote. Hence, submits the learned counsel, that the requisite majority
       of nine votes was not obtained.
28. In response, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel and Mr.
    Aniruddha Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent authorities,
    have contended that the Appellant No. 1 is not entitled to the
    benefit of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 as that
    Section will apply only to a person who has applied to the Scrutiny
    Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date of
    filing the nomination papers and who is elected on the reserved seat
    but whose application is pending before the Scrutiny Committee on
    10.07.2023, the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension
    Act, 2023. It is only to those persons the benefit of submission of the
    Validity Certificate within twelve months from 10.07.2023 is made
    available. According to them, it is only that person’s election which
    may have been terminated or deemed to have been terminated
    for not submitting the Validity Certificate would be protected by the
    deeming provisions which enabled the individual to continue to be
    a Member or Sarpanch. They further contended that the impugned
    order warrants no interference as it has been rightly held that on
    account of the conduct of the Appellant No. 1 in not furnishing the
    declaration as undertaken and as required, he is deemed to be
    automatically disqualified with retrospective effect from the date of
    his election. Since the No Confidence Motion was carried with eight
    Members out of ten, who were entitled to sit and vote, the rejection
    of No Confidence Motion was illegal.
       Discussion and findings:
29. Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 read as under:-
            “3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections
            10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
            Act and sections 12A, 42 and 67 of the Maharashtra Zilla
            Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, for contesting
            General or bye-elections to the Village Panchayats, Zilla
            Parishads and Panchayat Samitis which were held on or
            after 1st January 2021 and till the date of commencement
            of this Act,—
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                             185

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


           (a)   a person, who has applied to the Scrutiny Committee
                 for verification of his Caste Certificate before the date
                 of filing of the nomination papers and who is elected on
                 the reserved seat of a member or Sarpanch of Village
                 Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad
                 or member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti, but
                 whose application is pending before the Scrutiny
                 Committee on the date of commencement of this Act,
                 shall submit his Validity Certificate within a period of
                 twelve months from the date of commencement of
                 this Act ;
           And
           (b)   a person, whose election has been terminated or
                 deemed to have been terminated or a person who
                 is disqualified for being a member or Sarpanch of
                 Village Panchayat, Councillor or President of Zilla
                 Parishad or member or Chairman of Panchayat Samiti
                 for not submitting the Validity Certificate within the
                 period specified in sections mentioned above, shall
                 be deemed to be and shall continue to be a member
                 or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor or
                 President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman
                 of Panchayat Samiti, as the case may be, and shall
                 not be disqualified till the period of twelve months
                 from the date of commencement of this Act for not
                 submitting the Validity Certificate:
                 Provided that, if such person fails to produce the
                 Validity Certificate within a period of twelve months
                 from the date of commencement of this Act, his
                 election shall be deemed to have been terminated
                 retrospectively and he shall be disqualified for being a
                 member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Councillor
                 or President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman
                 of Panchayat Samiti.
     (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not be applicable,—
           (a)   where bye-elections have been held on the seats
                 specified in sub-section (1) before the date of
                 commencement of this Act ; or
186                                                          [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


            (b)   where a member whose application of Validity
                  Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny
                  Committee.
       4. All legal proceedings pending immediately before the date of
       commencement of this Act, before any court or authority relating
       to disqualification of a member or Sarpanch of Village Panchayat,
       Councillor or President of Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman
       of Panchayat Samiti, for not submitting the Validity Certificate
       by them in cases where extension of period for submission of
       Validity Certificate is granted under this Act, shall abate.”
30. The statement of objects and reasons leading to the passing of the
    Temporary Extension Act, 2023 w.e.f. 10.07.2023 are important.
    They are extracted hereinbelow:-
            “Sections 10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village
            Panchayats Act (III of 1959) and sections 12A, 42 and
            67 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayats
            Samitis Act, 1961 (Mah. V of 1962) provides that, every
            person desirous of contesting elections to a seat of a
            member or Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Councillor
            or President of the Zilla Parishad or member or Chairman
            of Panchayat Samiti reserved for persons belonging to
            Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or, as the case may
            be, Backward Classes of Citizens, shall submit alongwith
            the nomination paper, Caste Certificate issued by the
            Competent Authority and the Validity Certificate issued
            by the Scrutiny Committee.
            2. The abovementioned sections of the said Acts are
            amended with a view to allow the persons, desirous of
            contesting for such reserved seats in certain general or
            bye-elections and have applied to the Scrutiny Committee
            for obtaining Validity Certificate, to submit the Validity
            Certificate within twelve months from the date on which
            they were declared elected.
            3. As the Scrutiny Committees are overburdened
            with the work of verification of Caste Certificates, the
            elected members were facing difficulties in obtaining
            the Validity Certificates from the Scrutiny Committees
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                             187

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


           within the period specified in the said Acts. The
           applications of such elected members are still pending
           before the Scrutiny Committees. However, due to
           pending applications of such members before Scrutiny
           Committees more than seven thousand duly elected
           members were disqualified or might be disqualified for
           not submitting Validity Certificates for no fault of their own.
           Also it had caused hindrance in the local self-governing
           process. It was, therefore, necessary to ensure that
           such elected candidates shall not be deprived to hold
           such offices merely because of non-issuance of validity
           certificates in time by the Scrutiny Committees when
           their applications are still pending with the Scrutiny
           Committees.
           4. It was, therefore, considered expedient to make a law
           to provide for extension of a period of twelve months
           for submitting Validity Certificates by persons elected
           on reserved seats of member, Sarpanch, Councillor,
           President and member and Chairman in certain general
           or bye-elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads
           and Panchayat Samitis and for the matters connected
           therewith or incidental thereto.
           5. As both Houses of the State Legislature were not in
           session and the Governor of Maharashtra was satisfied that
           circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him
           to take immediate action to make a law, for the purposes
           aforesaid, the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period
           for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to
           Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis)
           Ordinance, 2023 (Mah. Ord. VI of 2023), was promulgated
           by the Governor of Maharashtra on the 10th July 2023.
           6. The Bill is intended to replace the said Ordinance by
           an Act of the State Legislature.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
31. As would be evident, this Temporary Extension Act was enacted
    since the Scrutiny Committees were overburdened with the work of
    verification of Caste Certificates and the elected members were facing
188                                                              [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       difficulties in obtaining the Validity Certificates within the prescribed
       time. It is aimed to protect the applicants whose applications are
       still pending before the Scrutiny Committee. The idea was that such
       elected candidates ought not to be deprived merely because of non-
       issuance of Validity Certificates when the applications are still pending.
       Section 3 begins with a non obstante clause. It applies to elections
       held on or after the 1st January, 2021 and till 10.07.2023, the date
       of commencement of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. It clearly
       provides that it covers the cases of persons who have applied to the
       Scrutiny Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate before
       the date of filing of the nomination papers and who are elected on
       the reserved seat; and whose applications are pending before the
       Scrutiny Committee on the date of commencement of the Act. It is
       mandated that they can produce the certificate within twelve months
       from the date of commencement of the Temporary Extension Act,
       2023 i.e. till 09.07.2024. Sub-clause (b) states that a person whose
       election has been terminated or deemed to have been terminated
       or a person who is disqualified for being a Member or Sarpanch for
       not submitting the Validity Certificate within the period specified in
       the sections mentioned above (10-1A and 30-1A), shall be deemed
       to be and shall be continued to be a member or Sarpanch and shall
       not be disqualified till the period of twelve months. Sub-section (2)
       further clearly states that the provisions of sub-section (1) shall not
       apply where the member whose application of Validity Certificate
       had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 4 states
       that all legal proceedings pending immediately before the date of
       commencement of the Act, before any court or authority relating to
       disqualification of a member, for not submitting the Validity Certificate
       where extension of period for submission is granted under the present
       Act was to abate.
32. The High Court, in the impugned order, has recorded the following
    findings in its operative portion:
            “32. In this particular case, Sudhir’s application for a Validity
            Certificate was rejected on 1st April 2021. The argument
            that this rejection is technical is totally irrelevant. In fact,
            the order seems to us to expose precisely the mischief
            that is sought to be cured and addressed by Section
            10-1A and the amended proviso. It is not permissible for
            a candidate to simply file an application and do nothing
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                          189

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


           further. That application for a Validity Certificate must
           be properly filed and followed through. The mere filing
           of the application is not in sufficient compliance with the
           statute. The Validity Certificate has to be obtained within
           the time provided, whether by the original statute or by
           the Temporary Extension Act. Simply filing some sort of
           defective application with incomplete documents does not
           meet the statutory purpose.
           33. Thus, if even the mischief rule of interpretation, the
           oldest interpretation doctrine by far, [Heydon’s case, 1584,
           76 ER 637] is adopted for the purposes of the Maharashtra
           Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Temporary Extension
           Act, it is clear that defective or incomplete applications
           that result in a rejection are no different from a rejection
           on merits. Yet, Section 3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension
           Act is thus an essential safeguard.
           34. Viewed from either perspective, the Temporary
           Extension Act cannot come to Sudhir’s rescue. We note
           from the Ordinance, a copy of which is at pages 93 and
           96, that it was necessitated because of the huge backlog
           of applications pending before the scrutiny committee.”
33. As was set out earlier, after obtaining his caste certificate on
    03.02.2013, it was only on 30.12.2020 that is on the same day of the
    nomination that the Appellant No. 1 moved the Scrutiny Committee
    for obtaining the Validity Certificate. The elections were held on
    18.01.2021 and the results were declared on 21.01.2021. He ought
    to have furnished the Validity Certificate by 20.01.2022.
34. After filing his application for the Validity Certificate on 30.12.2020,
    he undertook that he would file the declaration of the results within
    a week. Besides, this undertaking is legally backed by the judgment
    in Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra), which no doubt gave two
    weeks from the date of declaration of the result for communication of
    the declaration to the Scrutiny Committee. Admittedly, the appellant
    No. 1 did not submit the declaration either within one week as
    undertaken or within two weeks as provided in Mandakani Kachru
    Kokane (supra). In cases where there is due communication
    from the applicants, the Division Bench in Mandakani Kachru
    Kokane (supra) had obligated the Scrutiny Committee to decide
190                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the case within a maximum period of eight months from the date of
       communication. The Scrutiny Committee which is faced with a large
       number of applications can legitimately expect that the applicants who
       require disposal on priority basis should comply with the formalities
       required to enable the applicant to get priority in decision making.
       The Committee under Rule 17(3) is also entitled to reject incomplete
       applications by recording reasons. Under Section 17(2) it is also the
       obligation of the applicant to comply with removal of objections raised.
35. It is in this background that the order of 01-03/04/2021 came to be
    passed whereby the applications (including those of the Appellant
    No.1), were ‘filed’. On the facts of the case, the question is, would
    the order of 01-03.04.2021 tantamount to a rejection under Section
    3(2)(b) of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 so as to dis-entitle
    Appellant No.1 from the benefit of Section 3.
36. To answer this question, the object of Section 10-1A and 30-1A of
    the Panchayats Act along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Temporary
    Extension Act, 2023 ought to be borne in mind. As has been correctly
    held in Anant H. Ulahalkar (supra) while reiterating the holding
    in Sujit Vasant Patil (supra), ordinarily, the rule is for an aspiring
    candidate in an election to submit the Caste Certificate and the
    Validity Certificate along with the nomination. However, a window
    of twelve months was given for those who have not obtained the
    Validity Certificate to furnish the same and this was held to be a
    “risk” that the applicants were taking. Under the Caste Certificate
    Act, 2000, the certificate attains finality only if it is authenticated with
    a Validity Certificate. That statute and scheme have been discussed
    herein above. From those who aspire to contest for a reserved
    seat and who take a risk of applying for the validity certificate by
    filing an application before the date of nomination, it is prudent to
    expect that they will show utmost due diligence in the prosecution
    of their application. This would mean that they are expected to do
    all that is within their control to do and submit with the Scrutiny
    Committee a valid application for their consideration. In fact, it was
    on the basis that applicants aspiring to contest election who do not
    possess a Validity Certificate, were taking a risk, that the provisions
    were held to be mandatory. Further and independent of the above,
    Mandakani Kachru Kokane (supra) which came on 27.10.2020
    well before the Appellant No.1 filed his nomination clearly mandated
    that there was an obligation on the applicants before the Scrutiny
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           191

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


     Committee to furnish the declaration of the results within two weeks
     of the declaration of the results for expeditious disposal. In this
     case, results were announced on 21.01.2021. Under the law, as
     it obtained in Maharashtra, as laid down in the statute and in the
     judgments of the Court, there was an obligation to furnish the validity
     certificate on or before 20.01.2022. The Appellant No. 1 admitted in
     the second application filed on 14.06.2023 that inspite of possessing
     the declaration of the result, for some reason, he could not file the
     same with the Scrutiny Committee. The consequence was that on
     20.01.2022, the Appellant No.1 stood automatically disqualified as
     a Member with retrospective effect from the date of his election,
     under Section 10-1A of the Panchayats Act. On 01-03/4/2021, under
     Rule 17(2) and 17(3) of the Caste Certificate Rules, the applications
     were ‘filed’ for not submitting of the notification of his election. It is
     pertinent to note that the said order was never challenged by the
     Appellant No.1 and so it has attained finality.
37. To hold that – in spite of the Appellant No.1 not doing everything
    required to be done, and which were under his control to do – his
    application before the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee was
    still pending on 10.07.2023 for the purposes of Section 3 of the
    Temporary Extension Act, 2023, would be letting the Appellant No.1
    take advantage of his own wrong. It will also go against the object
    and purpose of extending the time for production of the Validity
    Certificate by further period of twelve months from 10.07.2023.
38. As is clear from Section 3(1), the further period of twelve months from
    10.07.2023 was for those whose applications were validly filed and
    pending and where their applications have been submitted before the
    date of nomination. Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 3 of the Temporary
    Extension Act, 2023 only revives the membership of those, whose
    applications are pending by enacting a deeming provision, since they
    are now given a further period of twelve months from 10.07.2023
    to furnish the Validity Certificate. Sub-section (2) (b) clearly states
    that Section 3(1) was not to apply to members whose applications
    for Validity Certificate has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee.
39. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant No.1 that there
    was no rejection and that it was only a “filing” or “lodgment” of the
    application on 01-03/04/2021 by the Scrutiny Committee, does not
    commend itself to us for acceptance. The rejection in Section 3(2)
    (b) will also include those cases where applications came to be
192                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       rejected on account of defaults committed at the end of the applicants
       themselves. An applicant who has certain things under his control
       ought to have done everything that is under his control for the
       purpose of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023. This
       would also mean that Section 3(1) of the Temporary Extension Act,
       2023 would not apply since there was no valid application filed before
       the nomination to the Scrutiny Committee and which was pending.
       That his application was not pending, was also the undertaking of the
       Appellant No.1, as explained hereinabove. Accepting the contention
       of the Appellant No.1 would also amount to putting a premium on the
       concession given to a party who was taking the ‘risk’ of contesting
       the election by not having a Validity Certificate on the date of the
       nomination.
40. For the above reasons, we hold that the Appellant No.1 stood
    automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed to produce
    the Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of his election.
    The protective umbrella of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension
    Act, 2023 will not be available to Appellant No.1 since he is hit by
    Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application
    pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act.
41. Additionally, the application was rejected under Rule 17. No doubt
    this cannot be a rejection which will result in the cancellation of his
    caste certificate. This is also reinforced by the fact that the District
    Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, by its letter dated 14.09.2023,
    stated that the Appellant No.1’s application dated 30.12.2020 was
    “disposed for non-compliance” and clarifies that his Caste Certificate
    dated 03.02.2013 is not invalidated. The Appellant No.1 may take
    the benefit of the validity certificate issued to him on 12.07.2023,
    pursuant to his second application of 14.06.2023, for sustaining his
    Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority on 03.02.2013,
    for contesting in future elections and for claiming other concessions
    as may be available in law.
42. Appellant No.1 has ceased to be a member because of the automatic
    disqualification. In view of this, the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated
    19.06.2023 rejecting the No Confidence Motion on the ground that
    the voting requirement of three-fourth of the members “entitled to
    sit and vote”, was not fulfilled, cannot be sustained and has rightly
    been set aside by the High Court.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            193

         Sudhir Vilas Kalel & Ors. v. Bapu Rajaram Kalel & Ors.


43. The net result is that the High Court was right in setting aside the
    rejection of the No Confidence Motion and in holding that the No
    Confidence Motion against Appellant No. 2-Sarpanch, was duly
    carried. The High Court was also justified in directing that the Appellant
    No.2 should stop exercising the powers as a sarpanch and in further
    directing that the election for the post of village Sarpanch be notified
    afresh. The High Court was justified in quashing the declaration dated
    19.06.2023 declaring that the No Confidence Motion had failed.
44. We affirm the judgement and order of the High Court dated 20.09.2023
    in Writ Petition No. 7924 of 2023. In view of the above discussion,
    the Appeal is dismissed. Interim orders will stand vacated. No order
    as to costs.


     Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey   Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.